We are the war criminals now - Robert Fisk Article

gandalf

Robert Fisk: We are the war criminals now
'Everything we have believed in since the Second World War goes by the board as we pursue our own exclusive war'

29 November 2001

We are becoming war criminals in Afghanistan. The US Air Force bombs Mazar-i-Sharif for the Northern Alliance, and our heroic Afghan allies – who slaughtered 50,000 people in Kabul between 1992 and 1996 – move into the city and execute up to 300 Taliban fighters. The report is a footnote on the television satellite channels, a "nib" in journalistic parlance. Perfectly normal, it seems. The Afghans have a "tradition" of revenge. So, with the strategic assistance of the USAF, a war crime is committed.

Now we have the Mazar-i-Sharif prison "revolt", in which Taliban inmates opened fire on their Alliance jailers. US Special Forces – and, it has emerged, British troops – helped the Alliance to overcome the uprising and, sure enough, CNN tells us some prisoners were "executed" trying to escape. It is an atrocity. British troops are now stained with war crimes. Within days, The Independent's Justin Huggler has found more executed Taliban members in Kunduz.

The Americans have even less excuse for this massacre. For the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, stated quite specifically during the siege of the city that US air raids on the Taliban defenders would stop "if the Northern Alliance requested it". Leaving aside the revelation that the thugs and murderers of the Northern Alliance were now acting as air controllers to the USAF in its battle with the thugs and murderers of the Taliban, Mr Rumsfeld's incriminating remark places Washington in the witness box of any war-crimes trial over Kunduz. The US were acting in full military co-operation with the Northern Alliance militia.

Most television journalists, to their shame, have shown little or no interest in these disgraceful crimes. Cosying up to the Northern Alliance, chatting to the American troops, most have done little more than mention the war crimes against prisoners in the midst of their reports. What on earth has gone wrong with our moral compass since 11 September?

Perhaps I can suggest an answer. After both the First and Second World Wars, we – the "West" – grew a forest of legislation to prevent further war crimes. The very first Anglo-French-Russian attempt to formulate such laws was provoked by the Armenian Holocaust at the hands of the Turks in 1915; The Entente said it would hold personally responsible "all members of the (Turkish) Ottoman government and those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres". After the Jewish Holocaust and the collapse of Germany in 1945, article 6 (C) of the Nuremberg Charter and the Preamble of the UN Convention on genocide referred to "crimes against humanity". Each new post-1945 war produced a raft of legislation and the creation of evermore human rights groups to lobby the world on liberal, humanistic Western values.

Over the past 50 years, we sat on our moral pedestal and lectured the Chinese and the Soviets, the Arabs and the Africans, about human rights. We pronounced on the human-rights crimes of Bosnians and Croatians and Serbs. We put many of them in the dock, just as we did the Nazis at Nuremberg. Thousands of dossiers were produced, describing – in nauseous detail – the secret courts and death squads and torture and extra judicial executions carried out by rogue states and pathological dictators. Quite right too.

Yet suddenly, after 11 September, we went mad. We bombed Afghan villages into rubble, along with their inhabitants – blaming the insane Taliban and Osama bin Laden for our slaughter – and now we have allowed our gruesome militia allies to execute their prisoners. President George Bush has signed into law a set of secret military courts to try and then liquidate anyone believed to be a "terrorist murderer" in the eyes of America's awesomely inefficient intelligence services. And make no mistake about it, we are talking here about legally sanctioned American government death squads. They have been created, of course, so that Osama bin Laden and his men should they be caught rather than killed, will have no public defence; just a pseudo trial and a firing squad.

It's quite clear what has happened. When people with yellow or black or brownish skin, with Communist or Islamic or Nationalist credentials, murder their prisoners or carpet bomb villages to kill their enemies or set up death squad courts, they must be condemned by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and the "civilised" world. We are the masters of human rights, the Liberals, the great and good who can preach to the impoverished masses. But when our people are murdered – when our glittering buildings are destroyed – then we tear up every piece of human rights legislation, send off the B-52s in the direction of the impoverished masses and set out to murder our enemies.

Winston Churchill took the Bush view of his enemies. In 1945, he preferred the straightforward execution of the Nazi leadership. Yet despite the fact that Hitler's monsters were responsible for at least 50 million deaths – 10,000 times greater than the victims of 11 September – the Nazi murderers were given a trial at Nuremberg because US President Truman made a remarkable decision. "Undiscriminating executions or punishments," he said, "without definite findings of guilt fairly arrived at, would not fit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride."

No one should be surprised that Mr Bush – a small-time Texas Governor-Executioner – should fail to understand the morality of a statesman in the Whitehouse. What is so shocking is that the Blairs, Schröders, Chiracs and all the television boys should have remained so gutlessly silent in the face of the Afghan executions and East European-style legislation sanctified since 11 September.

There are ghostly shadows around to remind us of the consequences of state murder. In France, a general goes on trial after admitting to torture and murder in the 1954-62 Algerian war, because he referred to his deeds as "justifiable acts of duty performed without pleasure or remorse". And in Brussels, a judge will decide if the Israeli Prime Minister, Arial Sharon, can be prosecuted for his "personal responsibility" for the 1982 massacre in Sabra and Chatila.

Yes, I know the Taliban were a cruel bunch of bastards. They committed most of their massacres outside Mazar-i-Sharif in the late 1990s. They executed women in the Kabul football stadium. And yes, lets remember that 11 September was a crime against humanity.

But I have a problem with all this. George Bush says that "you are either for us or against us" in the war for civilisation against evil. Well, I'm sure not for bin Laden. But I'm not for Bush. I'm actively against the brutal, cynical, lying "war of civilisation" that he has begun so mendaciously in our name and which has now cost as many lives as the World Trade Centre mass murder.

At this moment, I can't help remembering my dad. He was old enough to have fought in the First World War. In the third Battle of Arras. And as great age overwhelmed him near the end of the century, he raged against the waste and murder of the 1914-1918 war. When he died in 1992, I inherited the campaign medal of which he was once so proud, proof that he had survived a war he had come to hate and loathe and despise. On the back, it says: "The Great War for Civilisation." Maybe I should send it to George Bush.


http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=107292

bonkey

Good article....obviously slanted in one direction, but good. I have a few thoughts on some of these areas, which I have been thinking about since seeing the same type of broadcasts which Mr. Fisk was deriding....

Now we have the Mazar-i-Sharif prison "revolt", in which Taliban inmates opened fire on their Alliance jailers.

Exactly how did imprisoned men (who had surrendered, according to the same media) get their hands on so many guns in a prison to be able to open fire, but without sufficient ability to actually run away?

I may be confusing events, but my dim recollection was that the first report on this said that there was an insurrection in a prison, which led to the US bombing it, resulting in the deaths of all prisoners. This obviously clashes with later reports...I may be confusing events, I may have dreamt it, or it may be another classic reporting about-face situation (for any number of reasons).

US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, stated quite specifically during the siege of the city that US air raids on the Taliban defenders would stop "if the Northern Alliance requested it".

I also noted that in one of the recent Pentagon "daily updates", some rear admiral admitted that they were not actually aware, in many cases, of who may have been in the targetted buildings, but that they had reliable information "from their allies on the ground" that these were Taliban strongholds. When questioned, he admitted that the allies on the ground were, indeed, the NA.

On a related topic, CNN had an interview recently where someone (cant remember who) was being asked to justify the logic of wanting a military trial for any Al Qaeda leaders who are captured, despite the US having a history of criticising other nations for doing just this. Interesting parts of the reply included :

1) Military trials do not always result in a conviction - acquittals have been known to occur from time to time.

This apparently was the logic showing that military courts are as fair as the civilian process

2) The September 11 attacks were an act of war, and therefore must be dealt with as such.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, acts of terrorism are not classified as acts of war. Also, if the deaths of innocent Afghani's is acceptable as "collateral damage" due to the fact that these are side-effects of an act of war, then surely the initial Sept 11 deaths fall into a similar category? OK - maybe the scale makes them atrocities...but exactly where does the scale end? How many must die before "acceptable collateral damage" becomes "atrocity"? It generally seems more a case of "if we do it, its ok. If they do it, its a war crime".

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

As far as evaluating the prisoner revolt from a moral standpoint is concerned, it is a difficult question, fraught with conflicting events. Was it a war crime? I'm not sure, I wasn't there, and can't say what happened. What I do know however, is that if you happen to be captured, and manage to conceal weapons about your person and attempt to use them- you are no longer a non-combatant. We also know that several of these foreign fighters are desperate men, willing to die for their cause- they put themselves in a situation during the revolt, forcing their jailors to kill or be killed. Yet, several things still trouble me in all of this.

Firstly, the scale of the response. If a number of prisoners at a criminal penitentiary back home managed to somehow break into the armory and the government decided to send in the USAF to nape the prison...I think there would be more than a few eyebrows raised. Was it really necessary to bomb the prison into oblivion? I don't think it was, the response seemed hasty, poorly coordinated (US troops were seriously injured and large numbers of NA soldiers killed) and not thought out at all. I don't believe for one instant that the death of all 500 prisoners in this manner was at all necessary. At best, it was a preventable slaughter, at worst, a seriously questionable decision worthy of consequences.

Another extremely chilling report is independant verification by a press photographer that several of the prisoners were found dead, riddled with frontal bullet-wounds, and with their hands tied behind their backs. Added to the fact that not a single prisoner survived the onslaught, it makes for some grim reading.

Yet another report from a Times reporter describes how a CIA official was threatened while interrogating a suspect. He then proceeded to draw his sidearm and shoot two unarmed men before being wrestled to the ground and beaten to death. Unpleasant as this sounds, I have no sympathy for him, there are few things worse in my mind than shooting an unarmed man. What followed however was a riot that was helped along by the poorly guarded arms locker right next door to the interrogation room. After a few hours of fighting, the prison was literally carpet-bombed, and all the revolters were killed.

In my opinion, at the very least the US government must mount an inquiry into the reasoning behind the scale of the response...on the other hand, perhaps the matter could be left in the hands of the UN or the war crimes tribunal. One thing is certain in my mind- there is a case to answer here, and the questions posed are not easy.

Occy

shotamoose

I don't know what to think about it either. On the BBC last night their reporter said that the Northern Allianc 'and the American troops' (those were the words he used as far as I remember) poured oil into the building where the last remaining Taleban prisoners were holding out, and set it on fire. The better to force them into the open, the better to shoot them.
Dunno how I'd react in the situation either. This 'take no prisoners' mentality (US spokesman have been openly using that phrase as some sort of screwed up badge of courage recently) is pretty worrying though.

mike65

Robert Fisk can go boil his head!

No-one really knows WTF happened but that does'nt stop him and many others opining like they have a God-like presence
seeing all. Fisk is very biased and will always think the worst of the west and the US in particular as he is of that 60s'/70s'
Vietnam generation of lefties.

Which is why his word is writ in Ireland of course, where
folk are very quick to phone Liveline to have a go at the
US and (Britain of course!) but usually doing so while seeming
to have little grasp of Real Politik.

Hurlers on the ditch- the lot of them.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant but these people are only ever heard when its the bad guys getting a pounding.

Mike.

Victor

Is this acceptable then?



Real smile, real gun, real bodies (look at the newspaper version). However, it doesn't look like a combat situation.

The men that revolted died, because there were insufficient guards to guard them and the armoury in the fort (the rest were having a 'celebration'). they weren't even searched when they were taken prisioner. Anywhere else the prison govenor would be charged with culpable homocide.

Red Moose

I'm pretty sure that Hitler would have tried Winston Churchill as a war criminal had Nazi Germany prevailed...........what's his point?

Or if he was in China would he be so outspoken against the government regarding Taiwan or whoever they are after. It's great that the war-criminal freedom we have allows him to voice his opinion isn't it........:)

Chaos-Engine

There is no good in this war...
It simply replaces the disriminated minority from Women(who will still got a raw deal) to Pushtin Afghans....

BUSH IS EVIL TOO

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
Robert Fisk can go boil his head!

No-one really knows WTF happened but that does'nt stop him and many others opining like they have a God-like presence
seeing all.

You, on the other hand, appear to have no problem with the fact that because of the "fog of war", we (the public) will never know what went on, and so shouldnt worry about it? Good idea....as long as the reporters dont tell us all the facts, we should just have a coke and a smile and let them get on with it?

For a start, Fisk is perfectly entitiled to his opinions. Secondly, he is generally quite well informed, and raises some thorny issues. While you may not agree with his conclusions, they follow quite logically from his arguments - and I challenge you to point out anything in his article which is untrue - only when you do that can you tell him to go "boil his head".

Fisk is very biased and will always think the worst of the west and the US in particular as he is of that 60s'/70s'
Vietnam generation of lefties.

You know, I'm very rapidly getting to the point where I will start having to ignore any post which tags someone as a "lefty" or a "capitalist" or anything like that, because these posts are obviously at least as biased as the people they are criticising, and often moreso.

Which is why his word is writ in Ireland of course, where
folk are very quick to phone Liveline to have a go at the
US and (Britain of course!) but usually doing so while seeming
to have little grasp of Real Politik.

Hurlers on the ditch- the lot of them.

For a start, it doesnt explain why his word is writ in Ireland - he would arguably have far more success if he wrote in the US.

Also, I fail to see your point. Exactly what do these "hurlers" have to do with the validity of Fisk's article? Are you saying that because they read it, it is somehow less valid? How?

Sorry if this sounds like a rant but these people are only ever heard when its the bad guys getting a pounding.

Afghanistan are the bad guys, therefore the US would be what? Surely not the good guys? This shows your objectivity. Nice one.

Could you explain, then, why the bombing of an entire prison is acceptable, when it was not known whether or not all the inmates were involved in the riots? Exactly why is a captured Taliban soldier - who agreed to surrender - classified as "the bad guy" who deserves to be bombed to death for sitting in his cell?

Because unless you know for a fact that every prison inmate took part in the insurrection, then you must concede the possibility that some didnt. And if they didnt, exactly why is it ok for your "good guys" to drop bombs so indiscriminatly. Take Occy's example - would it be OK for the US to execute an entire prison of American criminals because some of them tried an armed insurrection? Would the criminals not be bad guys whom it was OK to kill as well?

At the end of the day, all I can see of your argument is "Fisk is wrong because he's biased and I disagree with him".

Yes, of course Fisk is biased. Every human being on this planet capable of rational thought is biased - it is a simple fact. This bias does not make Fisk any more or less relevant than anyone else. Have you anything more useful to contribute?

jc

Yo Mamma

Osama bin Laden isn't the beast but the world that this man helping to create most certainly is the embodiment of hell. The guy is a god-like figurehead to the fanatical members of his terrorist network of course - because they're all nuts, right?

Switch sides for a minute.

People don't naturally lend themselves to worshipping losers. Imagine for a minute that you're part of a culture that has a serious grudge against a decadent yet sanctimonious American people. You worship rice and blankets while they worship Big Macs and soft toilet paper. Then along comes this guy with comparatively limited resources, who in one day brings the most powerful nation on earth to it's knees. If he was on our side, he'd make Arnold Schwarzenegger look like Conan the fcuking Librarian!

And you can bet your last, few pound that most Northern Alliance troops in Afghanistan admire his accomplishment, in spite of the fact that they're supposed to be on our side - and that includes their spokesman Abdullah Abdullah (so good they named him twice).

Osama bin Laden and people like him must be stopped because no cause justifies killing innocent people, but one can't help but wonder how many Afghan children will die as a direct consequence of the search for him.

Allegiances in Afghanistan aren't worth the bullets they're printed on. They'll just join whichever side appears to be winning because it's their way. Their principals are determined by the need to survive - not by loyalty to any cause or political system. At the moment is suits them to side with America because of their apparent strength. But if America or her allies waver in the slightest or lose credibility in their "War On Terror" just watch how many of those worms turn to terrorism and it's apparent ability to effect maximum change with minimum resources, as Osama bin Laden has so clearly demonstrated to fanatics everywhere.

War gives EVERYONE an opinion but is not glorious or honourable. It's dirty, obscene and deceitful. It turns decent people into murderers. It kills children and is the embodiment of evil.

But sometimes it's necessary.

JustHalf

Originally posted by gandalf
The Americans have even less excuse for this massacre. For the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, stated quite specifically during the siege of the city that US air raids on the Taliban defenders would stop "if the Northern Alliance requested it". Leaving aside the revelation that the thugs and murderers of the Northern Alliance were now acting as air controllers to the USAF in its battle with the thugs and murderers of the Taliban, Mr Rumsfeld's incriminating remark places Washington in the witness box of any war-crimes trial over Kunduz.

Mr Fisk is an idiot.

He is suggesting that the Northern Alliance requests should be ignored by the US, and making a very dodgy leap of thought in doing so.

Good day.

Magwitch

I am not going to take sides in this but would point out a few facts.

Firstly: There is NO police force in the world that could subdue and capture 600 well armed, trained and dedicated man. So the army/air force was used. It was a battle, NOT a police action. If a comparible situation did happen in a western prison, the same methods would be used most likly - but surrender would be a realistic outcome. Surrender was not on the cards for the Taliban and never was.

Secondly: Warcrimes, As to what a war crime is? Well the rules of war are specific, especially where prosioners are concerned. The confusion arises because these men did not remain prisoners. If someone surrenders then you must accept their surrender. However the Taliban fighters did NOT surrender. It was the Taliban who breached the rules of war by (to all intensive purposes) abusing the Geneva convention to launch a violent attack. Breaching a flag of truce is a serious matter, not only under International law, but between all Soldiers.

No matter what investigation is launched and completed it will not find wrong doing by the Northern Alliance. In order to prove a massacre was intended the Northern Alliance would have had to have more armed troops on the ground (and the revolt would not have happened) to kill all Taliban soldiers. ie. premeditated. They did not, their security was lapse, and they had too few guards. Where the confusion arises is that this was a REVOLT . By any logic it was not. It was a premeditated sneak attack by Taliban hard core, who knew that a mock surrender was their only way out of Kunduz. Taliban "prisoners" did escape the fort and as far as can be assertained the Taliban in the fortress did not offer their surrender. The Northern alliance and the US were not obliged to ask them to surrender (a slight technical matter called war) and I doubt the opportunity arose.

Thirdly: and most important. On the same point the legal rights that the Foreign Taliban actually have are vauge (the press will spot that eventually). If you serve in a foreign countries armed forces and are not a national of that country you are technically a mercenary under the UN charter on war. Mercenaries do not have ANY RIGHTS under the Geneva convention. IT simply does not apply to them. Cruel I know, but that is the law. The Taliban did not have a conventional army so that further weakens any legal claim. The possibility exists that all captured Taliban could be slaughtered to a man, in cold blood, and legally their could be nothing done about it. It is a terrible prospect, but if an investigation is launched these facts may become blatently apparent to all-in-sundry in Afghanistan, prompting a bloodbath. It would not be a matter for international law, but internal Afghan law (such as might exist) which I doubt would find any wrong doing.

The prospect exists in Afghanistan that Ismeal Khan (Tajik commander) will try Foreign Taliban under Sharia law. The result will most certainly be guilty verdicts (no matter what the charge) and a slow death. The Foreign Taliban want to avoid being found guilty in an Islamic court at all costs. The planned trials would destroy publicly the Taliban mythos and their credibility in the Islamic world and deny them Martyrdom.

And tonights prize goes to the person who can tell me what happened to the American mercenaries captured by British forces in the Falklands?

Gargoyle

Hmm. Its a war crime to kill people who are firing shots at you? Its a war crime to kill foreign terrorists who went to Afghanistan with the intention of becoming martyrs fighting you? LOL.

What a ridiculous article. These guys were mercs. The slaughter of these foreign fighters was just about the best thing that could have happened. Otherwise, they might have been sent back to their home countries where many could have been released, perhaps to perpetrate more terrorist acts in the future. They went to Afghanistan wanting to die? So be it; good riddance.

gandalf

I think you guys are missing the point here. I agree that Fisk has a slanted point of view. I don't expect he will be top of the Tex Mex Meal invitations for the White House.

Yes some of the prisoners rebelled and killed their jailers and they did deserve their fate, however there is very strong evidence that not all the prisoners took part in this revolt, pictures of Taliban with their hands tied behind their backs shot in the chest would suggest otherwise.

Yes war is a terrible thing but you cannot sign up to something like the Geneva convention and apply it selectively which imho opinion is what is happening in Afghanistan. Donald Rumsfelds comments again imho are an absolute disgrace, he more or less said "take no prisioners".

I think that a full and open UN investigation is needed otherwise this will be a festering sore that other fanatics will use for their benefit.

Gandalf.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Hmm. Its a war crime to kill people who are firing shots at you? Its a war crime to kill foreign terrorists who went to Afghanistan with the intention of becoming martyrs fighting you? LOL.

Perhaps not, but it is a war-crime to slaughter unarmed prisoners. Unless you have no moral objections to such a slaughter?

I agree with gandalf- I think a lot of posters are missing the point. Let's also bear in mind that it was a CIA official who precipitated the riots. That's right- the entire thing was sparked off by agent "Michael" shooting two unarmed men without provocation, as independantly verified by a Times reporter and by 3 Reuters men. Said agent was then overpowered by several incensed prisoners who surged next door, raided an arms locker and tried to fight their way out.

What both Fisk and I are saying is, that the US and its allies have to bear a huge share of the responsibility in all this. Far from working with the NA to ensure that prisoners are detained effectively and disarmed, they do a half-a$sed job, then attempt an interrogation. It ends violently with the murder of two unarmed prisoners and the systematic dismemberment of the CIA agent. Seeing the situation getting rapidly out of control, a heavy bombing raid is launched as a desperate measure, a totally disproportionate response.

To those who posted the thought to the effect that: "those b@stards deserved everything they got", I say this: You're not going to be able to convince me that every single prisoner was attempting violent action. Rumsfeld's policy stance is what I find most despicable in all of this. "An armed mob of violent prisoners? Let's just bomb the whole lot...sure we'll kill some innocents, but hey, we've been doing that the whole war anyway, what difference will it make?"

This never-may-care attitude about casually slaughtering every prisoner for the actions of what might have well only been a small percentage of all the prisoners held, is unacceptable to me. The fact that the riot started in a small interrogation room for foreign fighters makes it unlikely that very many people were involved in incensing this prison revolt. As such, the revolt could have been down; it is telling that despite the presence of several special forces men on the ground in and around the prison, they could not effect the containment of a poorly trained prison bust-out squad. Poor communication, bad judgement and an excessively punitive response all add up to a massacre that could have been prevented. I don't care if some of you think they deserved to die- I personally believe that's not our decision to make- if anything, they are entitled to due process, prisoner exchange, medical treatment and all the other rights accorded under the Geneva convention.

There is an inescapable truth in all of this- if the situation was reversed, we would dub the prison revolters as "brave heroes, risking their life for freedom"- just look at the Great Escape. Prisoners breaking out of a POW camp idolized as heroes...granted they didn't do it armed...but you can see my point. If the situation was reversed, we would dub it "a terrible warcrime on a level with the Holocaust" and promptly prosecute every jailor and his dog in the surrounding 30 square miles. It's true that the victors write history, and that despicable acts must sometimes be committed to prevent despicable acts...but taking this course and claiming the moral high ground is just not on

That's the point the Flisk makes, and he makes it well.

Occy

JustHalf

Read this:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

gandalf

And your point is JustHalf. Please explain what you are trying to get us to understand by reading the Geneva Convention.


Gandalf.

Aspro

Fisk is very biased and will always think the worst of the west and the US

That's cos it's usually true.

As opposed to the Rupert Murdoch school of propaganda that we're fed through Sky News and his print media.

If journalists like Fisk or Pilger come across as being slanted it's because of that rare phenomenon known as investigative journalism - actually telling the truth.

Pity there isn't more Vietnam era lefties bringing us the news.

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Let's also bear in mind that it was a CIA official who precipitated the riots. That's right- the entire thing was sparked off by agent "Michael" shooting two unarmed men without provocation, as independantly verified by a Times reporter and by 3 Reuters men. Said agent was then overpowered by several incensed prisoners who surged next door, raided an arms locker and tried to fight their way out.

While I agree with you in principle, Oc, I'm wondering where this version of events comes from?

The news reports I've seen (CNN for example) are saying that the whole thing started when some "prisoners" exploded grenades they had smuugled into the camp, taped to their own torsos. This then gave the other Taliban prisoners the chance to overpower the guards and stage the insurrection. Apparently this also has media eyewitnesses.

I know that CIA-boy was witnessed shooting those guys, but is there any tangible evidence linking this event to the insurrection?

jc

JustHalf

Originally posted by gandalf
And your point is JustHalf. Please explain what you are trying to get us to understand by reading the Geneva Convention.

My point?

You said this:
Yes war is a terrible thing but you cannot sign up to something like the Geneva convention and apply it selectively which imho opinion is what is happening in Afghanistan.

My point was that everyone should actually read what it says. You cannot argue your point without it being based in fact. How do you know that the "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" is being applied selectively if you haven't read it? And how can anyone claim you are wrong if they haven't read it?

It needs to be read by people before they start arguing about it. Without doing so, you'll (the general you) start talking about some sort of "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" that exists only to benefit your argument.

I doubt many people on the boards have read it.

So it should be read. I know I am.

Originally posted by Aspro
If journalists like Fisk or Pilger come across as being slanted it's because of that rare phenomenon known as investigative journalism - actually telling the truth.

I've only read a few Fisk articles, but from what I've seen he's an opinionated fool who seems to write before thinking about what he's saying. He comes across as an anti-semite -- the articles I've read from him had nothing to do with Israel, and yet he managed to incorporate jabs at Israel or Israelis that where linked to the subject matter only in an exceptionally vague manner, if at all.

He has stated that the Northern Alliance should have stayed out of Kabul, and not have taken the city.

I don't think anyone expected the Taliban to run away.

Do you expect any General worth their salt to cry out "Oh no, let's hang around outside, like retards"? Because that's what Fisk wanted to happen. Although his knowledge of history seems to exceed mine (though tainted with an EXTREME bias) he fails to understand a very simple tactic of securing surrendered territory - for that's what Kabul was.

In the same article he also implies that the UN would not be allowed to create a truly representative interim government. I am told that in previous articles he has claimed that the US co-alliton would lose this war, and that millions of US soldiers would die.

I've also seen people on this board quote him to prove a point, and to revere him as the great truth-sayer of the world. It's really quite funny.

Sean

Like his Father he is useing war as an excuse to take everyones mind of "The Death Star" and the oil pipe in alaska... and blair is no better hes just in it for a chunk of afganistan

JustHalf

Yes Sean. The British support the founding of a truly representative government in Afghanistan so that they may govern Afghanistan.

Shinji

he fails to understand a very simple tactic of securing surrendered territory - for that's what Kabul was.

Fisk doesn't fail to understand this at all. What Fisk fails to understand is why the United States of America, so often defended on these boards and elsewhere and apparently the defenders of the free world, allowed the Northern Alliance - a group of warlords every bit as brutal and opportunistic as the Taliban - to occupy a major civilian city.

Or rather, it's not that he fails to understand it. It's that he understands it all too well.

Earlier you criticised him for suggesting that the information being fed to the US by the Northern Alliance was faulty or self-serving. Given the pedigree of the NA, it's hard to see how it WOULDN'T be.

The British support the founding of a truly representative government in Afghanistan so that they may govern Afghanistan.

HA! The British government doesn't even support the founding of a truly representative government in Britain, never mind bloody Afghanistan. You know full well that whatever takes over in Afghanistan will be representative - representative of the interests of the USA, that is. Blair only raises his head to bleat about this issue because he wants to make sure that the UK has a finger in the pie too... Extending the Tony's Cronies system around the globe, wahey!

He comes across as an anti-semite

If by anti-semite you mean "someone who thinks that the manner in which the state and people of Israel have acted in the middle east is both wrong and horrific", then yeah. I'm one too. It's a nice brush to paint people with, you'll find more militant Jews doing it all the time; you don't agree with Israel, therefore you're an anti-semite! You're either with us or against us... Hmm, THAT one sounds familiar...

I am told that in previous articles he has claimed that the US co-alliton would lose this war, and that millions of US soldiers would die.

Not millions. Thousands, perhaps. Depends how long the NA are prepared to allow themselves to be petted before they start to bite the hand, or just get bored.

Of course the newspapers are currently jumping up and down and claiming that the war is won and all the troops are doing now is mopping up. America is eyeing up new targets, heady with its "success" in Afghanistan.

But there are thousands of Taliban soldiers unaccounted for. God knows how many armaments. The senior forces of Al Quaeda. And those mountain ranges that make up about a third of Afghanistan house 'em all. If this sounds familiar, it's probably because you've heard about the long-running Soviet campaign in Afghanistan... in which they took Kabul and all the other major cities in a matter of weeks, and followed it up with being routed over a period of about a decade.

Celt

He comes across as an anti-semite -- the articles I've read from him had nothing to do with Israel, and yet he managed to incorporate jabs at Israel or Israelis that where linked to the subject matter only in an exceptionally vague manner, if at all.

Jesus christ.
Using your logic, the whole western world actually is anti islamic.
Get real.
Being against israel is very different from being against all jews everywhere, just as being anti taliban is different than being against all muslims everywhere.

It's people like you on the islamic side who recruit all the talibans members.

Ronan|Raven

PAh

Sorry about that

/me removes pointless drunken rant

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Shinji


...the United States of America, so often defended on these boards

LOL!

What boards are you on?

Red Moose

Originally posted by Ronan|Raven
CLAP CLAP!


And the Afghans the money to build cave hideouts during the occupation against the USSR. Quite amazing according to them Osama is hidng in them!

And that is why they know exactly where to bomb. It appears that a lot of the general population over there will switch sides whenever. So what if they helped fund development against communism in the 70s or 80s? It runed out that the people they were helping were just as dictatorian ****s as those who supported the USSR. Or are you trying to imply that teh resultant Taliban did *not* become a power-crazed organisation focussed on opressing women, etc., ?

hell the whole world has lost millions of people through war.... the americans lost x amount in the terrosit atacks and they feel loss, Welcome to the world america ye didnt think to much about "trying" out the new nuclear weapons on 1000's of innocent japanese in ww2

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
~Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese admiral, World War 2, after attacking Pearl Harbour)

It's tit for tat. If you can't afford to be in the game, then stay the **** out of it.

oh and also isnt it amazing how they let the israelis roll into palestinine land and they sit back!

People bitch endlessly that the US should not be the world's policeman, but then when some **** get's all ****ed up, it's obviously America's fault, isn't it?

lord knows they ran into Kuwait quick enough when there precious oil was in threat

/b]

The Middle-East oil reserves were discovered and first drilled out by US companies in the 1930s. If those countries are so undemocratic that they wish to sell their oil to whoever, that's there problem. Like I said, if those people deserve so much aid from teh UN/US, why do they let the dicatorships in power?

Next time you start your car, ask yourself where the **** you think the petrol comes from. [keep personal insults off this board Red or there will be trouble[edited by Gandalf]] If you feel so bad, stop using that american computer.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Ronan|Raven

hell the whole world has lost millions of people through war.... the americans lost x amount in the terrosit atacks and they feel loss, Welcome to the world america ye didnt think to much about "trying" out the new nuclear weapons on 1000's of innocent japanese in ww2

oh and also isnt it amazing how they let the israelis roll into palestinine land and they sit back!

Originally posted by Red Moose



People bitch endlessly that the US should not be the world's policeman, but then when some **** get's all ****ed up, it's obviously America's fault, isn't it?

I'm sure your post will be deleted Moose because they don't tolorate any insults here. I will just point out that most people say the US should step in between Israel and Palestine because US weapons are the ones Israel uses to attack Palestine.

What they don't mention is that one of the Primar reasons the US sells such a large number of weapons to Israel is because they have a history of being sneak attacked.

Bottom line: Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. We sell them weapons both for that reason and because if we did not, Egypt and Syria would have rolled into Israel years ago and slaughtered them all. If Muslims want to bitch with the US about supporting Israel, their real beef should be with the UN that created the state in the first place.

Simply, the notion that the US brought this on itself by supporting Israel is ridiculous.

As for the rest of the world losing millions through war so the US shouldn't complain about 9/11 (I'm paraphrasing there). Oh well. Millions dying is obviously terrible, but do you honestly expect us to "let it go" because millions have died in a civil war in Africa somewhere?

If the US really did want to "take over the world" and create an "evil empire" as so many on these boards aspouse, they would have: a) already done it, or b) plunged the world into nuclear winter trying. History shows that whenever there is one power in the world that has overwhelming military force as the US does, they attempt to conquer all they can, most of the time laying waste to any people in those lands that resist them. (European 19th century colonization ring any bells?) The US has not done this. Think about it; it could be a lot worse.

mike65

Originally posted by bonkey


Afghanistan are the bad guys, therefore the US would be what? Surely not the good guys? This shows your objectivity. Nice one.

Afghanistan are not the bad guys, The Tabilan and Bin Laden are the bad guys, and in this context the US are the good guys. They may not be tommorow in a different context but right here,right now they are.

My first post was a rant but that does'nt mean I'm blindly pro the US, far from it in fact, I just get fed up with the way the Irish media will go to a professional malcontent for opinion which chimes in with this countries' anti-imperialist/faux pacifist attitude
rather than seek out hard facts which might suggest that-
shock horror war is right.

Mike.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Shinji
Fisk doesn't fail to understand this at all. What Fisk fails to understand is why the United States of America, so often defended on these boards and elsewhere and apparently the defenders of the free world, allowed the Northern Alliance - a group of warlords every bit as brutal and opportunistic as the Taliban - to occupy a major civilian city.

Or rather, it's not that he fails to understand it. It's that he understands it all too well.

Earlier you criticised him for suggesting that the information being fed to the US by the Northern Alliance was faulty or self-serving. Given the pedigree of the NA, it's hard to see how it WOULDN'T be.

You do know that Kabul is not the only major city in Afghanistan, and in one of his previous articles Fisk seems to have no problem with their occupation of Mazar-i-Shareif (sp?).

Mind telling me when I "criticised him for suggesting that the information being fed to the US by the Northern Alliance was faulty or self-serving"?

Originally posted by Shinji
HA! The British government doesn't even support the founding of a truly representative government in Britain, never mind bloody Afghanistan. You know full well that whatever takes over in Afghanistan will be representative - representative of the interests of the USA, that is. Blair only raises his head to bleat about this issue because he wants to make sure that the UK has a finger in the pie too... Extending the Tony's Cronies system around the globe, wahey!

I suppose you believe that there is no talks in Bonn then.

Originally posted by Shinji
If by anti-semite you mean "someone who thinks that the manner in which the state and people of Israel have acted in the middle east is both wrong and horrific", then yeah. I'm one too. It's a nice brush to paint people with, you'll find more militant Jews doing it all the time; you don't agree with Israel, therefore you're an anti-semite! You're either with us or against us... Hmm, THAT one sounds familiar...

That's not what an anti-semite is.

An anti-semite is a person who hates Jews. Not someone who disagrees with the actions of Israel or Israelis (because it's quite obvious that Fisk disagrees with them), but someone who hates Jews. Come on!

Originally posted by Shinji
Not millions. Thousands, perhaps. Depends how long the NA are prepared to allow themselves to be petted before they start to bite the hand, or just get bored.

Of course the newspapers are currently jumping up and down and claiming that the war is won and all the troops are doing now is mopping up. America is eyeing up new targets, heady with its "success" in Afghanistan.

But there are thousands of Taliban soldiers unaccounted for. God knows how many armaments. The senior forces of Al Quaeda. And those mountain ranges that make up about a third of Afghanistan house 'em all. If this sounds familiar, it's probably because you've heard about the long-running Soviet campaign in Afghanistan... in which they took Kabul and all the other major cities in a matter of weeks, and followed it up with being routed over a period of about a decade.

Tell me, which Afghan factions were involved in the battle against the Soviets?

JustHalf

Originally posted by WhiteLancer
Jesus christ.
Using your logic, the whole western world actually is anti islamic.
Get real.
Being against israel is very different from being against all jews everywhere, just as being anti taliban is different than being against all muslims everywhere.

It's people like you on the islamic side who recruit all the talibans members.

Using my logic, anyone who has insulted Israel in articles which have nothing to do with Israel; and does so in a manner that is disguised as a "thinking point" yet makes no sense either in the context used or outside of it.

Let us examine this part of the Fisk article quoted by gandalf:
And in Brussels, a judge will decide if the Israeli Prime Minister, Arial Sharon, can be prosecuted for his "personal responsibility" for the 1982 massacre in Sabra and Chatila.
Anyone mind telling me what's wrong with that happening? Fisk disagrees, while claiming to promote due process.

Fisk is against Israel, but it seems to me to be far more because they are Israelis than that they have carried out questionable acts. His articles that I have read seem always to work towards insulting Israel or Israelis, regardless of what the article is about. Which makes him look like an anti-semite.

And by the way, WhiteLancer, people like me don't instantly proclaim a holy war to serve their own interests; which is what the Taliban did in an effort to recruit soldiers. I have far too much respect for God. Most muslims do also.

Ronan|Raven

I deleted my post, I checked it this morning and cna safely say it came out more or less as the complete opposite as I had set out to make yes 2am and several vats of beer do make for irresponsible posts

Anyway I didnt go and post to stir **** so that is all but am sorry if it may have looked like that

gandalf

Which makes him look like an anti-semite.

An anti-semite is a person who hates Jews. Not someone who disagrees with the actions of Israel or Israelis (because it's quite obvious that Fisk disagrees with them), but someone who hates Jews. Come on!

JustHalf you have more or less contradicted yourself in those 2 posts.

As regards to Kabul, Fisk wasn't the only one who didn't want the NA to take the city. The "George & Tony" show originally didn't want them to go in either. The difference between Kabul and the other cities in Afghanistan is that it is the capital and the seat of power.

Gargoyle btw its personal insults we are homing in on. As well as racist. I have edited one insult at the end of Red Mooses post out. Red Moose keep it civil please or as they say in Pulp Fiction "I'll have to get medieval on your ass".

Chaos Engine your obviously not listening to me if you want to post comments like "Bush is Evil" please back them up or be prepared to have very few posts left intact on the Politics board.

Gandalf.

Aspro

Originally posted by Gargoyle[/i}
If the US really did want to "take over the world" and create an "evil empire" as so many on these boards aspouse, they would have: a) already done it, or b) plunged the world into nuclear winter trying. History shows that whenever there is one power in the world that has overwhelming military force as the US does, they attempt to conquer all they can, most of the time laying waste to any people in those lands that resist them. (European 19th century colonization ring any bells?) The US has not done this. Think about it; it could be a lot worse.

The point is Gargoyle, they already HAVE done it!
As the largest economic power and only military superpower the USA have "taken over the world".

Think about it the next time you put on your jeans and runners, watch the news, fill up your car and go for fast food.

They don't need to roll in with the tanks and B-52s to establish their domination. They've done it with the dollars - with the institutions they control - the IMF, World Bank, WTO etc.

It's only when former friends like Saddam Hussein or the Taliban get too big for their boots and threaten US imperialism's economic interests in a particular region that military intervention has to be justified.

What's would the point be in "plunging the world into a nuclear winter"? It wouldn't make much economic sense to vapourise the market for your products and the cheap labour producers of your wealth.

The anti-war sentiments of myself and others on this board aren't intended as "USA bashing" or support for "terrorists". It's that we're sick of being lied to by the George and Tony club.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Aspro


The point is Gargoyle, they already HAVE done it!
As the largest economic power and only military superpower the USA have "taken over the world".

Think about it the next time you put on your jeans and runners, watch the news, fill up your car and go for fast food.

They don't need to roll in with the tanks and B-52s to establish their domination. They've done it with the dollars - with the institutions they control - the IMF, World Bank, WTO etc.

<snip>

Well, Aspro, No one is forcing the rest of the world to use American computers, eat at American restaurants, wear Amercian clothes, or work for American companies. People do so because they choose to do so - because it is beneficial to them. This is the fundamental way a free market works. Sorry, but I really don't see this as "taking over the world" in the traditional imperialist sense.

JustHalf

Originally posted by gandalf
JustHalf you have more or less contradicted yourself in those 2 posts.

Nope. If I was to say that Fisk didn't disagree with the Israelis, I would be telling a barefaced lie.

He comes across as an anti-semite. Just because he disagrees with the actions of Israel doesn't mean he isn't also an anti-semite. It's obvious he disagrees with the actions of Israel. I think he also comes across as an anti-semite, both for the manner in which he conveys his disagreement (I don't think he gives very good reasons for doing so), and the location (I've only read articles of his which relate to Afghanistan, yet in all that I have read he takes a dig at Israel).

Originally posted by gandalf
As regards to Kabul, Fisk wasn't the only one who didn't want the NA to take the city. The "George & Tony" show originally didn't want them to go in either. The difference between Kabul and the other cities in Afghanistan is that it is the capital and the seat of power.

What would you do gandalf? Would you hang around outside the city after the Taliban ran away?

I'd take the city.

gandalf

Originally posted by JustHalf


What would you do gandalf? Would you hang around outside the city after the Taliban ran away?

I'd take the city.

Nope I'd take it. I was just pointing out to you that it wasn't only Fisk who disagreed with the NA taking Kabul.

Gandalf.

Magwitch

The only eye witness I saw interviewed on TV was an ITN journalist who was being treated for shrapnel. She had, she siad been injured in grenade blast, set off by a prisoner, which prompted the attack.

The claims about the CIA agent Micheal have been contradictory. American claims from the Whitehouse siad he had been in the same room as 80 prisioners with only one CIA companion as company. The second CIA guy was apparently unarmed. It was claimed that a few Taliban fighters through themselves at him and he shot two before he was over powered. The other CIA officer apparently ran to the other side of the fort and called in air strikes.

This is completely at odds with the ITN eyewitness reporter (who at least has a leg injury to back up her story). Secondly, any CIA officer on the scene and that close to the centre of events would not walk into a room of 80 Taliban armed with 1 pistol. Field officers would be alot more savy than that (not to mention well trained). The Whitehouse version of affairs seems ridiculas, and I think it is. But according to the only other credible version the US should have nothing to hide. Thirdly wold a CIA officer be either equiped or trained in guiding in air-strikes? I think not. A case of too much spin perhaps?

Typedef

Originally posted by Aspro


The point is Gargoyle, they already HAVE done it!
As the largest economic power and only military superpower the USA have "taken over the world".

Here, Here. The USA has become just another Imperialist, hegemonic and dictatorial power, just like every other power through histroy. Bottom line, the US is run by small minded and opportunistic people, just like every other country. Still while the Soviet Union was a player it was possible to view the Americans as saviours, the American propaganda seemed so credible, the standard of living in the US was so comparitively high, so how could the US be wrong. Ask a stupid question. Look at how the US corsely dropped Nuclear weapons on what 300,000 Japanese civilians and then ask your self the question, how could the US ever again be right? Come on, at which point did protecting democracy, equality, freedom, and the "american way" necessitate incinerating and irradiating hundreds of thousands of civilians? In the future (if humanity still exists), say 300 or 400 years from now, history will not judge the Americans through the media - miasma that is US propaganda. I'm sure the Spanish inquisition seemed reasonable at the time and that the clerics propaganda seemed valid but, histroy did not concour.

Let's face facts, for all the talk of the US about capitalism, opportunity, equality etc, the reality is the US is an imperialist entity just like the UK was, just like France was, just like Russia, then the USSR, and then Russia is. Just like any imperialist entity the US has systematically gone about defeating it's enemies to establish it's hegemony. Here is the kicker, with the US as the world's only "superpower" the only thing left for the US to do is decline, think about it, sooner or later another power (who will probably be suitably unpalletable) will rise to challenge American hegemony and that will be a kind of relative decline for the US. This is enivatible and similarly sooner or later either humans get past squabbeling like chimpanzees and get our act together as being sentient participants of a greater-civilisation or we self-destruct in some kind of vauntable and sutiably righteous war.

Gargoyle

Typedef, I cordially invite you to read my response to the post you quoted, since you conveniently ignored it the first time.

Well, Aspro, No one is forcing the rest of the world to use American computers, eat at American restaurants, wear Amercian clothes, or work for American companies. People do so because they choose to do so - because it is beneficial to them. This is the fundamental way a free market works. Sorry, but I really don't see this as "taking over the world" in the traditional imperialist sense

Hobbes

Originally posted by Red Moose
It's tit for tat. If you can't afford to be in the game, then stay the **** out of it.

tit for tat? The Taleban attacked the US?

That's funny I thought you invaded because the Taleban refused to hand over Bin Laden because of lack of evidence supplied and that he wouldn't get a fair trial (both true). But then the US had told everyone they were invading Afganistan around Sept-Oct long before the 11/9 attack.

Hmm, I see Spain is refusing to hand over people arrested in connection of the 11/9 attacks because they said they won't get a fair trial in the US (which TBH is also true). When do you's plan to invade Spain?

Well, Aspro, No one is forcing the rest of the world to use American computers,

My computers were made in Taiwan. Does anyone have a machine that says "Made in the USA"?

JustHalf

If you want evidence, Hobbes, read this:
http://www.ireland.com/special/usattack/evidence.htm

It's pretty convincing.

Also if I remember correctly, the Taliban would only hand over bin Laden on the condition he was handed over to an Islamic court.

When did the US say they were invading Afghanistan before September the 11th?

Also, your point with regards to American computers is pedantic. Nike (for example) may not make their shoes in America, but they're still an American company, and their produce is still American.

bonkey

Originally posted by JustHalf
If you want evidence, Hobbes, read this:
http://www.ireland.com/special/usattack/evidence.htm

It's pretty convincing.

Its pretty unconvincing if you ask me.

Pretty much all of it is background information, indicating the motive. Most of the rest is circumstantial - something which would never get a conviction in a civilian court of law in the US (which, however, *would* get a conviction in a military court where the onus of proof is apparently lessened).

Which, of course, is all covered nicely by the lead-ion comment of "Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources ". In other words - we may have evidence, but we cant use it. Now, the simple fact is that if you cant use evidence, it effectively doesnt exist. The whole legal process is set up in order to try and ensure a fair process. We cannot make exceptions here and say "sure, you can just tell us that you have the evidence. You dont need to produce it", simply because we dont like bin Laden, or because of the scale of these atrocities.

One comment which really interested me was "6. Al-Qaeda retains the capability and the will to make further attacks on the US and its allies, including the United Kingdom". First of all, this has nothing to do with the attacks themselves, and is more a case of showing that these people are so dangerous that we have to go after them anyway. It has nothing to do with the case in hand. It also belies the idea that the attacks on Afghanistan have somehow crippled Al Qaeda - which has been a persistent thread on these boards and in the media.

I also noted with interest that the only place which has anything other than circumstancial evidence was : There is evidence of a very specific nature relating to the guilt of Bin Laden and his associates that is too sensitive to release.

This of course, goes straight back to the "we know he's guilty but you'll just have to trust us" argument which I've seen before.

Now - lets be honest here. I believe Al Qaeda is guilty of carrying out these attacks. With any officially recognised government or military, the highest person in command is always held accountable for atrocities, or accountable for fross negligence if they were not aware of the atrocities. For these reasons, Osama could be held accountable. However, the doc which linked to is nothing more than media appeasement for those protesting the wrongness of the current actions, and pretty poor spin at that.

It shows motive. It shows similarities in methodology. It fails to offer proof. More correctly, it specifically refuses to offer proof.

When did the US say they were invading Afghanistan before September the 11th?

I think you may have missed the sarcasm Of course, I may be missing information, and assuming its sarcasm

jc

Hobbes

If you want evidence, Hobbes, read this:
http://www.ireland.com/special/usattack/evidence.htm


No I don't want evidence. I was saying that the Taleban were told to "Hand over or else". No evidence was presented to them and what was wouldn't stand up in court.

Now the US may have actual evidence (which they haven't shown anyone) but we expected to believe that any sane person would hand over people in their country with what the US showed? I don't think so.

It's pretty convincing.

Erm no it isn't. It pretty much says in the first part that "We can't show you the evidence, take our word for it".

the Taliban would only hand over bin Laden on the condition he was handed over to an Islamic court.

Because they probably believed he would get a fair trial, even if he was guilty. How would you feel about it if Afganistan had said "Hey US, we have proof of an American killing people in our country but we can't show you the proof just hand them over". Do you think any sane person would of handed them over?

As pointed out elsewhere already a lot of countries aren't too happy about the way the US is going with regards to it's secret trials (Which contrevene the UN Human rights charter). Spain was cited eariler as one country which won't be handing over people they caught with regards to the attacks. Because they don't believe the US will give them a fair trial.

When did the US say they were invading Afghanistan before September the 11th?

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP111B.html
About how the war in Afganistan was planned 4 years in advance.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml
More proof (or linkage off too). One in particular ...

The BBC's George Arney reported September 18 that American officials had told former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik in mid-July of plans for military action against the Taliban regime:

There is also a story about it on news.bbc.co.uk (can't find the link again) which is dated some months before the towers attack.

Also, your point with regards to American computers is pedantic.

But then so where yours. Believe it or not but most of the US profits are made from exports or business with foreign industries. US Companies have offices in other countries because it is cheaper for them to do so.

Nike (for example) may not make their shoes in America, but they're still an American company, and their produce is still American.

So America stands for the use of sweatshops and unfair treatment of children in creating goods?

Hmm, If I was you I would of picked a better example.

JustHalf

I honestly don't think that article from wsws.org supplies any sort of evidence. I don't see the mention of anywhere near as many sources as required to make any of this plausible.

Examples of stupidity from the article Hobbes quoted:

As long as the possibility of a pipeline deal remained, the White House stalled any further investigation into the activities of Osama bin Laden, Brisard and Dasquie write. They report that John O’Neill, deputy director of the FBI, resigned in July in protest over this obstruction. O’Neill told them in an interview, “the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” In a strange coincidence, O’Neill accepted a position as security chief of the World Trade Center after leaving the FBI, and was killed on September 11.

There is no reason to think that September 11 was merely a fortuitous occurrence. Every other detail of the war in Afghanistan was carefully prepared. It is unlikely that the American government left to chance the question of providing a suitable pretext for military action.

The Minneapolis field office had Massaoui arrested in early August, and asked FBI headquarters for permission to conduct further inquiries, including a search of the hard drive of his computer. The FBI tops refused, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of criminal intent on Massaoui’s part—an astonishing decision for an agency not known for its tenderness on the subject of civil liberties.

Gosh, conspiracy theories are great, aren't they?

Also, the globalresearch page is little more than quotes from a book--quotes that are not linked together very well, for the article makes no clear point.

Also, if the US was really this bad, why would they allow the UN to set up a new government?

Originally posted by Hobbes:
No evidence was presented to them and what was wouldn't stand up in court.

Well, if you bothered to read it you'd see that it says that at the very top of the page.

Originally posted by Hobbes:
But then so where yours. Believe it or not but most of the US profits are made from exports or business with foreign industries. US Companies have offices in other countries because it is cheaper for them to do so.

What? I was correcting you for nit-picking, and coming to the wrong conclusion. You might as well say: "This 50p says Eire on it, therefore this coin is the country of Ireland"

Originally posted by Hobbes:
Because they probably believed he would get a fair trial, even if he was guilty. How would you feel about it if Afganistan had said "Hey US, we have proof of an American killing people in our country but we can't show you the proof just hand them over". Do you think any sane person would of handed them over?

As pointed out elsewhere already a lot of countries aren't too happy about the way the US is going with regards to it's secret trials (Which contrevene the UN Human rights charter). Spain was cited eariler as one country which won't be handing over people they caught with regards to the attacks. Because they don't believe the US will give them a fair trial.

There is a big difference between Spain saying they will not hand over people to the US and the Taliban saying they will only hand over bin Laden to an Islamic court. For a start, why should a suspected criminal be tried in a court flavoured with religion?

JustHalf

Bonkey, you should probably edit your post so that others can reply easily. I hit quote and it only grabbed the last bit!

Anyway, now for some manual quoting...

Originally posted by bonkey
Pretty much all of it is background information, indicating the motive. Most of the rest is circumstantial - something which would never get a conviction in a civilian court of law in the US (which, however, *would* get a conviction in a military court where the onus of proof is apparently lessened).

I think it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that bin Laden is a very, very evil man; who had the motivation and means to carry out the attacks. The evidence linking him directly to the attacks, however, is only referred to, and not given.

Originally posted by bonkey
Which, of course, is all covered nicely by the lead-ion comment of "Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources ". In other words - we may have evidence, but we cant use it. Now, the simple fact is that if you cant use evidence, it effectively doesnt exist. The whole legal process is set up in order to try and ensure a fair process.

I agree, though I am sure that sources can still be protected while revealing evidence to a jury.

Originally posted by bonkey
One comment which really interested me was "6. Al-Qaeda retains the capability and the will to make further attacks on the US and its allies, including the United Kingdom". First of all, this has nothing to do with the attacks themselves, and is more a case of showing that these people are so dangerous that we have to go after them anyway. It has nothing to do with the case in hand. It also belies the idea that the attacks on Afghanistan have somehow crippled Al Qaeda - which has been a persistent thread on these boards and in the media.

How does it belie the idea that the attacks on Afghanistan have somehow crippled Al Qaeda?

Originally posted by bonkey
Now - lets be honest here. I believe Al Qaeda is guilty of carrying out these attacks. With any officially recognised government or military, the highest person in command is always held accountable for atrocities, or accountable for fross negligence if they were not aware of the atrocities. For these reasons, Osama could be held accountable. However, the doc which linked to is nothing more than media appeasement for those protesting the wrongness of the current actions, and pretty poor spin at that.

I disagree.

Originally posted by bonkey
It shows motive. It shows similarities in methodology. It fails to offer proof. More correctly, it specifically refuses to offer proof.

But at least gives a reason for doing so (whether you agree with it or not)

bonkey

Originally posted by JustHalf
Bonkey, you should probably edit your post so that others can reply easily. I hit quote and it only grabbed the last bit!

Apologies. /me has cleaned up the post.

I agree, though I am sure that sources can still be protected while revealing evidence to a jury.

You see, this is the stem of the matter. The US has consistently taken the line that the evidence itself would reveal information about the methods and/or technology available to them for evidence gathering, which they are not willing to compromise.

Whether or not we believe that they have the evidence, we should not allow the legal system to be corrupted to the extent that is being done here. The US want to be able to try bin Laden *and other foreign nationals* in a closed military court. This is such a dangerous precedent, I dont even know where to start.

I mean - how long before any foreign national suspected of terrorist-related crimes can be held indefinitely without charging, and then tried in a closed session with no course to appeal. IIRC, all of the legislation to enable this has already been proposed and/or passed.

Then, how soon before an American stands suspected of terrorist activities, and the rules change so that all terrorist suspects can be held indefinitely without charge, and then tried in a closed session with no course to appeal.

America, for better or for worse (a bit of both, I think) is the protector of the Western World in a lot of respects. More correctly, protects the western world's way of life by ensuring that activities throughout the rest of the world do not threaten this. To be honest, I wouldnt have a huge problem with that, were it done in a proper manner. What I do have a problem with is that the protector should be forced to maintain the principles it is trying to uphold.

Basically, bin Laden is almost definitely guilty. However, if he is denied his rights under the judicial system, then the price of "freeing the world from terrorism" will be the abandonment of justice.

jc